Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is.
I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Is Natural Selection Really Non-Random?

-
All too often evolutionists say that natural selection is non-random.

But is it?

Well let's look at what natural selction is-

“Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition

“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker”?

“Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin:

Variation

Inheritance

Fecundity

which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”- Allen McNeill prof. introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University

OK so it is a result of three processes- ie an output.

What drives the output? The inputs.

The variation is said to be random, ie genetic accidents/ mistakes.

With sexually reproducing organisms it is still a crap-shoot as to what gets inherited. For example if a male gets a beneficial variation to his Y chromosome but sires all daughters, that beneficial variation gets lost no matter how many offspring he has.

Fecundity/ differential reproduction- Don't know until it happens.

Can't tell what variation will occur. Can't tell if any of the offspring will inherit even the most beneficial variation and the only way to determine differential reproduction is follow the individuals for their entire reproducing age.

Then there can be competing "beneficial" variations.

In the end it all boils down to whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce.

Evolutionists love to pretend that natural selection is some magical ratchet. But when one pulls back the curtain all you have is some dude with a twinkie in each hand and a big fatty standing by.

That's evolution for ya...

Next they will be telling us that all the books in the world are descended by modification from the last universal common document.

Ya see slight copying errors were introduced to the first document, an illiterate population didn't know, so those bad copies were allowed to stay in the population.

Then those bad copies were copied and more errors introduced- and here we are.

It was all one author and many copying errors...

The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:

Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets. (pp. 199-200)

adapt the material others have left you, Joe. I know you have trouble with evolution, but it's not that hard. Take the sentences we type and make CHANGES to them. This may help you with the ladies and, incidentally, may help you with little things like ToE and WEASEL and stuff.

Joe, your writing and communication skills are very low. Perhaps you can trade lessons on ID theory with the 12 year olds. They'll learn cutting edge science from you and you'll learn how to talk to others and clearly explain ideas from them.

They may also throw in some free lessons in comedic writing and sarcasm. This will help you make friends.

New info, Joe. You do understand what that means, right? The same old-same old is not winning you any writing competitions. For example, the "projection" angle ran its course 3? years ago. Really, you should skip it and try to come up with something entertaining.

Or, citing a source for you "majority of people" if you're going for the technical writing side of things.

Either of these angles could be helped by hiring an editor--or asking a neighbor to help you out.

Right, your position is that either an omnipotent, omniscient being created the universe or he didn't.

If he did, being omnipotent and omniscient, he could have hidden the signs in a way that we would never discover them. We wouldn't know unless we knew the mind of God, but ID says we can't do that, so we're back to the position of:

Either it was designed by something that might not want us to find out and has the ability to make that reality or it wasn't.

New. You need to come up with new things to be entertaining, Joe. there is absolutely no scientific organization that takes you seriously, so if you are to be of any worth you need to be entertaining. that would require new and unexpected posts. Please try harder.

You're stupider than dirt, Joe. The Gallup Poll is a poll that asks the opinions of certain demographics of people. It is scientific in the sense that they use statistics to model opinions as close to accurately as possible.

Which brings us to 2 points that will fail to register in that empty head of yours:

1. It is an opinion poll. The answers provided by those who responded in no way represent the scientific and/or "correct" answers to the deep questions of biology.

2. It is interesting that you accept Gallup statistical modeling as an appropriate method for discerning truth, but reject biological statistical modeling as an appropriate method for discerning truth.

And again the reason I used it is because you asked for a reference to support my claim.

The poll does that.

1. It is an opinion poll. The answers provided by those who responded in no way represent the scientific and/or "correct" answers to the deep questions of biology.

You are an imbecile!

Opinions are what count here- that is my claim was about people's opinions!

And in the opinion of the vast majority of people your position is nonsense.

2. It is interesting that you accept Gallup statistical modeling as an appropriate method for discerning truth, but reject biological statistical modeling as an appropriate method for discerning truth.

You are an idiot.

This has nothing about discerning "truth". And you don't have any evidence taht I reject any biological statistical modeling.

Joe, the first time someone uses a cute phrase it can be funny. The second time it may still be funny. The third time gets a little old, and quite frankly, when a different person takes up using the same phrase without modification--it's just sad. Do try harder.